The Darwinian Destiny of An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change

165 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Darwinism in economics: from analogy to continuity (2006, background): “Hodgson (2002, 2003) introduces socio-economic replicators such as habits, routines, and institutions, which are compared to DNA, and that are subsequently subject to selection processes.”
Organizational Routines as a Unit of Analysis (2005, background): “In response to these apparently contradictory empirical findings, theorists have argued that organizational routines are generative, dynamic systems, not static objects (Pentland and Reuter, 1994; Cohen et al., 1996; Lazaric, 2000; Lazaric and Denis, 2001; Hodgson, 2003; Feldman and Pentland, 2003).”
The firm as an interactor: firms as vehicles for habits and routines (2004, methodology): “We also hope 1 Sections 1–3 of this essay make use of some material from Hodgson (2003b) and Knudsen (2002a, 2002b, 2004).”
Applying Organizational Routines in understanding organizational change (2005, background): “For example, the ‘performative’ level described by Feldman and Pentland seems quite parallel to the ‘phenotypic’ aspect of routines discussed by scholars who are more committed to placing the routines concept in a broader evolutionary framework (e.g. Hodgson, 2003).”